Re: Claude.ai provides reasoning why I may have defeated the conventional HP proof

On Tue, 2025-07-15 at 18:47 -0600, André G. Isaak wrote:

On 2025-07-15 18:39, olcott wrote:

On 7/15/2025 7:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:

On 2025-07-15 17:53, olcott wrote:

On 7/15/2025 6:45 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:

On 2025-07-15 17:35, olcott wrote:

>

You still make the same mistake with the implication operator.
That has always been the wrong operator for PROVES.

>
You're being an idiot. The principle of explosion can be stated
either in terms of implication or proof. I prefer implication. I'm
not mistaking one symbol for another. I'm saying exactly what I
intend to say.
>
André
>

>
Yet implication is not even truth preserving.
>

>
You seem to be using some private definition of 'truth preserving'.
Did you get that one from claude.ai as well?
>
André
>

>
the characteristic of an argument where,
if the premises are true, the conclusion
must also be true.
>
When the antecedent is false the consequent
can be true with the "→" operator.

>
And how would that make it non-truth preserving?
>
You're very confused. Since you seem to trust/overrely on wikipedia, you
can check against the following:
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_function#Algebraic_properties
>
André
>

 What olcott quotes has no real meaning (not what average people reads).
 olcott cannot understand the difference of logic-IF and logical-AND.
He can copy, quote and good at it. But as always, he just say it, his
brain is fried, he does not understand what they mean.